Photo of Ronald Tran

Ronald Tran

Ronald defends clients in toxic tort lawsuits and commercial litigation.

Ronald discovered a fascination with the law in college when he began reading legal textbooks from front to back. He loves legal theory and applying the logic of the law to various cases, and he’s passionate about the opportunities for research and logical argument development that litigation presents.

Ronald began his career at a public entity defense firm where he represented local government, honing his litigation abilities in cases filed against various Los Angeles government entities. He defended civil rights and personal injury claims in both state and federal court and became extensively familiar with the discovery and trial preparation processes. However, he knew his preference as an MBA graduate was to represent businesses, and Ronald eventually joined Husch Blackwell out of his desire to work closely with corporate clients.

Today, Ronald represents clients across various industries, including the automotive, safety, construction and pharmaceutical sectors, in asbestos claims and other business litigation cases. He frequently works with expert witnesses and firm’s network of subject-matter experts to develop defenses consistent with medical science.

Thanks to his business education, Ronald is known for his understanding of client business goals, needs and motivations. He readily grasps the client perspective and works to tailor his litigation strategies to fit clients’ unique business situations.

Contact:Read more about Ronald Tran

In Walter Coleman, et al. v. Burger King Corp., No. 22-20925 (S.D. Fla.), a putative class of consumers from thirteen states alleges that Burger King’s advertising for items such as the Whopper materially exaggerates portion sizes, making the burgers appear up to 35% larger than they actually are. Plaintiffs claim that since 2017, Burger King’s marketing has depicted patties protruding beyond the buns—imagery they say misleads consumers into believing the product has increased in size when it has not. The second amended complaint asserts fourteen counts: violations of consumer-protection laws in eleven states (including Florida, California, and
New York) plus Florida common-law claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for a nationwide class and state subclasses.

There have been recent growing concerns regarding the inhalation of crystalline silica dust in the California stone countertop industry, with attempts by the California State Legislature to enact regulations improving the occupational safety of workers fabricating stone slab products.1, 2 As this proposed legislation has developed, multiple studies have been conducted regarding safety measures that can be implemented for stone fabrication workers. Notably, some of those studies have revealed that effective methods to reduce occupational exposure to silica dust during fabrication exist and are feasible to implement by employers. While the research in the California stone countertop industry is still ongoing, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) has found that combining engineering controls and safer work practices would help greatly reduce the risk of harmful exposure to respirable silica dust.3, 4 Employers following this combination suggested by NIOSH in 2024 should make it feasible to safely work with stone slab products in California.

A powerful diamond-edged saw blade precisely cuts through a large, rough-hewn granite stone slab, sending up a plume of fine dust and debris.

In July, a proposed bill named the Silicosis Prevention Act was withdrawn from consideration in California. This proposed bill would have substantially affected the manufactured stone industry by banning dry fabrication activities, imposing licensing requirements for employers and workers, and implementing a public database for violations and other state enforcement actions. Even though this version of the proposed bill was withdrawn, further legislative efforts targeting the manufactured stone industry are anticipated in the future.